GUARDIANSHIP OF SWANDAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 83-383 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1984 I N THE MATTER O F THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP O F OLE SWAIJDAL and GLADYS B. SVJANDAL, I n c a p a c i t a t e d Adults. APPEAL FROM: T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of P a r k , T h e H o n o r a b l e B y r o n R o b b , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : McKinley Anderson, Bozeman, Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : Swandal, Douglass & Swandal, Livingston, Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: 'fip.: -& 989 Clerk February 2 , 1 9 8 4 May 2 4 , 1984 Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. Petitioners, Bruce and Sherry Knowlton, appeal from a Park County judgment dismissing their petition requesting the trial court to appoint a guardian and conservator for the respondents, Ole and Gladys Swandal. The sole issue is whether substantial credible evidence exists to support the findings and conclusions that Ole and Gladys Swandal are not in need of a gua.rdian or property conservator. Essentially, the petitioners argue that the physical infirmities of the Swandals make it difficult for them to manage their affairs, and therefore that they are "incapacited person(s)" within the meaning of section 72-5-306, MCA, such as to require the appointment of a guardian. addition, In the petitioners contend that a conservator of the Swandals' estate should. be appointed under section 72-5-409(2) (a) and (b), MCA, because they property that will otherwise "be wasted or dissipated have . . ." The Swandals are against either appointment and wish to continue to reside on and operate their ra-nch with the help of their ranchhands, James and Jane Frei. We affirm. Respondents, Ole and Gladys Swandal, own and reside on a 5,000 acre ranch nea.r Wilsall, Montana, where they have been living for well over 30 years. Norway, received some immigrated to Montana. Ole Swandal was born in schooling there, Ole is 82 years old. and eventually Gladys Swandal was born and raised in Montana, and she is 74 years old. Petitioner Sherry Knowlton is granddaughter and only living descendant. the Swandals ' She was living with her husband in Portland, Oregon, before they moved, at their own invitation, to the Swandals' ranch in. Montana. Sherry Knowlton had visited her grandparents several times before she and Bruce decided to pack up and move to Montana to take care of the ranch and Ole and Gladys. Sherry and Eruce had Baskett in written from Oregon to Dr. L. M. 'I,ivingston, requesting that he write a letter to Bruce's employer in Oregon to the effect that the Knowltons were . needed i n Montana to care for the Swandals. This way, Bruce was able to get a leave of absence and was able to return to his job after they lost at the trial l.evel, and they did in fact move back to Oregon. Appointment of a Guardia.n Appointment of a guardian for an "incapacitated person" in Montana is controlled by statute, section 72-5-306, MCA. That section provides in pertinent part: "Guardianship for an incapacitated person may be used only as is necessary to promote and protect the well-being of the person. The guardianship must be designed to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence in the person and may be ordered only - - extent that to the the person's a c t a l mental and physical limitations require it fEmphasis added.) . . ." An "incapacita.ted person" is defined in section 72-5-101 (1), MCA, as: ". . . any person who is impaired by reason of mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability, advanced age, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxicat-ion, or other cause (except minority) to the extent that he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make'or communicate responsible decisions concerning his person or which cause has so impaired the person's judgment that he is incapable of realizing and making a rational. decision with respect. to his need for treatment." To determine whether the Swandals are "incapa.citated person(s)," the trial court, pursuant to section 72-5-315, MCA, appointed an examining physician to physically examine the Swandal-s, and. also appointed a, "visitor" to interview them. Both the physician, Dr. L. M. Baskett, and the "visitor," Social and Rehabilitative Services worker Kathy Ellison, reported their findings to the trial court. Dr. Baskett has known the Swa-ndals for many years, and has been their treating physician for the last three or four years. He is well aware of Ole Swandal's double hernia condition and of Gladys Swandal's ulcerated rheumatoid arthritis, and in fact he was referring to those physical health problems when he wrote the letter to the petitioners while they were still in Oregon. He did not state in that letter, nor did he report to the court that the Swandals had any abnormal mental deficiency. He testified that Gladys' mental condition is "good" and Ole's is "acceptable," and they are able to make decisions concerning their day-to-day affairs. It is true that Ole Swandal refuses to have his hernia condition surgically corrected, but he recognizes the fact that he does need the operation. He simply refuses to have it, and Dr. Baskett testified that it is not life threatening in any way. Ole's situation is therefore different from that contemplated by section 72-5-101(1), MCA, which refers to a person whose judgment is so impaired by his disabilivy that he is "incapable of realizing and making a rational decision with respect to his need for treatment." In short, Dr. Baskett reported that the Swandal's physical. health is bad, but their mental health is good for people their age. "Visitor" Kathy Ellison twice interviewed the Swandals at their ranch, spoke with neighbors, the petitioners, Dr. Baskett, the housekeeper and others, and concluded also that although the Swandals are old and not in real good health, they are mentally firm and do not need a guardian. Psychological tests were also performed on the Swandals by William E. Harris, M.Ed. Without detailing the results of each of the several tests performed, the results did show that the Swandals, considering their ages, are still very much in possession of their faculties. The evidence as a whole shows that. the Swandals do have some physical health problems, but they suffer little mental deficiency. Gladys Swandal regularly meets with the accountant to discuss the ranch business transactions and still writes the company checks. Ole Swandal, though incapable of much heavy work, spends a lot of time with ranchhand Jim Frei, feeding and caring for the approximately 160 head of cattle. Their ranchhouse is "always cl-ean," and they are "always coherent" when people come to visit. Because the Swandals, at their a.ge, cannot run the ranch as well as the Knowltons or others might, is no reason to appoint a guardian. The statutes, sections 72-5-306 and 72-5-1.01(1), are clear in requiring both physical and mental impairment. There is no evidence to show that the Swandals are mentally infirm as provided in those sections. Appointment of a Conservator The appointment of a conservator is also controlled by statute in Montana. Sections 72-5-409 (2)(a) and (b), MCA, provide : "(2) Appointment of a conservator or other protective order may be made in relation to the estates and affairs of a person if the court determines that: " (a) the person is unable to manage his propert and affairs effectively for reasons - -as mentaH such illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability, advanced chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication, confinement, detention by a foreign power, or djsappearance; and " (b) the person has property which - -be wasted will or - dissipated unless proper management is provided 11 ... The petitioners contend that once the trial court found that the Swandals are "physically incapable" of running the ranch by themselves, it had a duty to appoint a conservator to insure the property is not "wasted or dissipated. " We do not agree. The court's finding that the Swandals are "physically incapable" satisfies 72-5-409(2)(a), the of requirement section but subsection (b) requires a showing that the "person has property which will be wasted or dissipated" unless "proper nnanagement" is provided. The trial court specifica.1l.y found that with the help of the Freis, the Swandals are able to "effectively" run the ranch. Indeed, the premises and cattle herd were found to be in good shape, contrary to allegations by the petitioners. There is no evidence that the Swandals' propert-y will be dissipated" if a conservator is not appointed. "wasted or The evidence demonstrates that their property and affairs were effectively managed. Substa-ntial evidence supports the findings and concl.usions of the trial court that the Swandal-s are still in possession of their mental faculties, and that their ranch property is not in jeopardy of immediate waste or dissipation. The District Court order dismissing the guardian and conservator petition is affirmed. We Concur: ?4@&4 Chief J b s t i F e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
